MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4293105150 · doi:10.1177/10778012221099986

Women Survivors of Adolescent Dating Violence Describe the Maintenance of Their Abusive Relationships: First Person Stories via YouTube

2022· article· en· W4293105150 on OpenAlexaff
Jennifer hegel, Jorden A. Cummings, Kelsi Toews, Laura A. Knowles, Whitney Willcott-Benoit, Alisia M. Palermo, Kendall Deleurme

Bibliographic record

VenueViolence Against Women · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntimate Partner and Family Violence
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDating violenceHuman factors and ergonomicsSuicide preventionPoison controlInjury preventionPsychologyPerceptionOccupational safety and healthAbusive relationshipDevelopmental psychologyClinical psychologySocial psychologyDomestic violenceMedicineMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The current study explores the personal stories of young women on their own experiences with adolescent dating violence and focuses on their perceptions of the relevant factors that maintained the relationship over time. To this end, we analyzed seven publicly available videos on YouTube of women explaining their experiences of adolescent dating violence, including how they perceived their relationships to be maintained over time. We identified four major sources these survivors perceived as contributing to the maintenance of adolescent dating violence: the Self, the Partner, the Relational Dynamic, and Other People.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.225 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueViolence Against WomenSame topicIntimate Partner and Family ViolenceFrench-language works237,207